The Nonprofit FAQ

Practical Issues about Percentage Fees (5/31/96)
Bill Kreuger wrote 26 May 1996:

Someone asked in soc.org.nonprofit:

> I am proposing to work as a fundraising consultant for a > small
non-profit, and they've agreed in principle to pay > me a commission on
the funds I raise. I'm not sure > exactly what percentage I should ask
for.

> Does anyone have any ideas? Reply by email and I will keep your >
information confidential, if you wish.

While the ethical arguments already posted are academically interesting,
I want to try some real life reasons why this "percentage compensation"
(PC) arrangement is probably a bad idea.

1. Is PC based off of net or gross revenue? If net, then consider the
cost of donor acquisition for a small group. It is not uncommon to spend
$1 to raise $1 from a first time donor - and 100% of $0net is still $0.
If it off of gross revenue, then what is to keep a fund raiser from
spending a lot of money to generate a lot (but netting little for the
charity), yet the fund raiser, since paid off of the gross, gets a lot
of personal income.

2. Who pays for fund raising expenses? The charity? - then why not spend
lots of money on great brochures etc. just to up the gross revenue so
the PC is highest for the fund raiser? If the charity doesn't pay the
"upfront" fund raising costs and that is to come from the PC consultant
- does the consultant have the resources or motivation to produce
first-class materials?

3 Finally, a PC arrangement creates a big problem. The "campaign" is
"owned" by the consultant not the group. Exactly what motivation does
the board and leaders have to help (and their help is critical,
especially with small organizations). After all, it is "the
consultant's" campaign and well, if he fails, it really didn't cost the
group anything? Right?

I can also easily hear the following from a board member - "Of course
you want me to make that appointment with my rich friend to ask for
money - after all you only get paid if I open that door, right?. Hey,
you're going to make the money - you open the damn door!"

Of course, you can't open it because you don't know the guy and even if
you did know him, how many times could you go back to the rich guy to
ask for money?

The point here is that everyone can have and defend their ethical
positions till the cows come home, but unless you can succeed as a fund
raiser (which obviously means raise money), the compensation issue or
the ethics really aren't that significant.

Would it be anymore "ethical" of me to charge a client $5,000 or $10,000
or more to conduct a "study" knowing full good and well that the group
had very little or no chance to actually succeed in a campaign? Yet
under NSFRE standards, I would be "ethical".

"Ethics" and "Honesty" are not synonomous - neither is "unethical" and
"dishonest".

Don - my unsolicited advice is - ALWAYS do that which is in the best
interest of the charity - disclose everything - be totally honest - work
your butt off for them - and, most importantly, succeed in raising money
for them. If you do that, the compensation issues and the ethics will
work themselves out.

William Krueger KCI101@aol.com